 |
|
|
|
| Citizens Of The U.S. Have To Serve Their Country In Some Fashion Before Being Allowed To Vote. |
| I'm not saying they have to serve in the military, I'm saying service to the country, whether that be as a teacher, a garbage collector, working in a medical clinic...etc., etc., etc.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but I think that something as simple as paying taxes would do. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
People from different part of the world come and stay in US for their livelihood and thus they
become the citizen of the country. These incomers adopt the basic attitude to the citizenship and to
the culture what a proper US citizen possess. But these incomers must prove themselves to be
suitable for the voting rights. They must do something for their hosting country before giving the
vote. They should know the history of the country and must serve the country according to their own
ability. This will lead to prove their commitment for the hosting country. Doing something well for
the country they are staying will be projected as a very good symbol of their pledge for the
country. So I am completely approved to this point that citizens of the U.S. Have to serve their
country in some fashion before being allowed to vote. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I had not thought about this idea until right now. Serve before you can register to vote for the
first time (only). A little idea that could serve America and its people in untold ways WITHOUT
TAKING AWAY VOTING RIGHTS.
IT WOULD WORK AND BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE.
It has real merit. There would have to be many exceptions to respond to the needs of persons with
various disabilities and it would be too expensive to require all exceptions to have a physician's
note.
It would have to be sure that the wealthy NOT have to meet the requirement. (like George W. Bush who
was able to skip going to the Vietnam war and while in reserves or similar he was AWOL from his
assignment but nobody made him responsible because Daddy President Bush had political and wealth
power. During Vietnam similar persons escaped the war by same power.)
There is no reason that would keep every high school student from performing community services to
someone or some community. Having been a Volunteer Services Director seeking, training and
assigning volunteers of all ages to a place of service, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLACES FOR EVERYONE,
even people with numerous, but not all, mental disabilities.
Services easily done by students and many disabled persons could include: Visiting nursing homes,
reading to children & shut-ins, picking up trash in parks and cemeteries, as well as other
activities related to skills, knowledge & abilities.
At different times in American history, certain professionals who received federal college loans
were required to serve 2 years after graduation in a rural or other underserved area. The same data
collection process could be applied to the proposal being debated hereon.
Of course, there would be millions of cheaters who would have a note written by themselves to
'prove' their hours and place of service. It would be costly to research every one.
There are other requirements for everyone before they can vote at any level of government: Local,
state & federal. As long as the requirements do not discriminate against any group of people as
they did in the pre-civil rights Southern States where Black Americans had to read and explain
complicated paragraphs in the Constitution, and turned away most of the time, than any other group
in the states.
Already there are people who lose their voting rights because they are convicted felons.
Unfortunately, there probably are military related assignments in "hot spots" of warring nations
that prevent those who serve from registering and voting.
Millions of people would be served and millions of Americans would truly "ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY
CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY." President John Kennedy's challenge made
a great difference for years before people got lazy, selfish or greedy and quit 'doing' for their
country.
THERE IS NO REAL REASON WHY THE REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT WORK. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I completely agree! People should have to prove they care, and know what real work is before voting,
or contributing. Especially the upper class, they should work lower class jobs, before they vote on
our behalf, and make decisions. Oh, and they should do the same for political office. I totally
agree, I definitely see were you are going with this. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, oh you're serious, wipe out freedom, basic right. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's stupid! Voting is a constitutional right, why should you take this away from someone, just
because they don't want to serve in a war they may not believe in. Also, what about those that can't
serve (disabled, etc), are you saying they can never vote no matter what? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, that's like putting a tax on a basic constitutional right as an American |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This would essentially mean that we are limiting universal suffrage, which is at the heart of
democracy. All American adults are given the right to vote, not on the basis of what they have or
have not done, but simply because this is seen as an inalienable right, granted to all citizens.
If we were to base the right to vote on one's achievement, merit or contribution to society, we
would raise a number of very difficult questions and the implication would be that voting is only
granted to those who merit it. It would therefore be reasonable to ask if we should take away this
right from those who have not contributed to society, or who have "harmed" the country. Should those
convicted of felonies, people on welfare, or those who are too lazy, or too busy building their own
career to "serve" their country be denied the vote?
Suffrage is universal and cannot be based on merit. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm against this. I think that governments are there to serve their people, not the other way
around. While I accept that the government should ensure a basic standard of living for the
population, I think it should do little more than that. I'm against anything that seeks to build up
the idea of the state as a thing in itself. To me this is redolent of totalitarian systems of
government such as fascism and communism.
I would imagine, if implemented, that the system you propose would also disproportionately favour
the wealthy because the wealthy can more easily afford to forgo earning a living for a while than
the poor. Your plan could result in the poor being disenfranchised and the country turning into a
plutocracy. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's rubbish |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Only if you want to serve in a higher office, like governor or Sod. That is my entire argument for
this side. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Why should any citizen have to serve their country before they are allowed to vote?
The right to vote is a basic right. Individuals, therefore have the right not to do what you suggest
before voting.
Eventually all citizens do something that serves their country in some way.
Young people and therefore first time voters have fewer chances to serve in the ways you suggest.
They may still be in full time education and will serve their country well in the future.
Would you therefore exclude those who, through no fault of their own are excluded from the labour
market?
I agree that people should serve their country well and that as citizens we do have a duty to our
country and the rest of society.
Under the system you propose there would be an unjustifiable imbalance, geographically and
politically and the whole voting system would be in turmoil. It just couldn't work. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 Jan 2008 08:40
Sign In
